7 ms·
To clarify: at the moment FLIF is licensed under the GPL v3+. Once the format is finalized, the next logical step would be to make a library version of it, whic
by jonsneyers 11y ago
To clarify: at the moment FLIF is licensed under the GPL v3+. Once the format is finalized, the next logical step would be to make a library version of it, which will be most probably get licensed under the LGPL v3+, or maybe something even more permissive. There is not much point in doing that when the format is not yet stable.
It's not because FLIF is GPL v3+ now, that we can't add more permissive licenses later.
And of course I'm planning to describe the algorithms and the exact file format in a detailed and public specification, which should be accurate enough to allow anyone to write their own FLIF implementation.
- bhouston 11y agoVery neat stuff. Would be nice to support 16/32bit floating point for true HDR as well if can be easily accommodated.
- jonsneyers 11y agoCan be done. Basically just change the type of ColorVal and implement a float variant of writer() and reader() in maniac/symbol.h.
- alanh 11y agoI want to chime in to say that the lack of a common image format (and displays, for that matter) with true support for high-range photos is really holding back digital photography in my humble opinion.
- Tloewald 11y agoNah, it's the camera makers that are holding things back by sticking to proprietary formats and in some cases obfuscating them. There's OpenEXR, HDR, and DNG (the last of which is a true RAW format). The big issue with creating a true interchange format is that RAW files don't have proper color information for all pixels (they instead have red, green, or blue data for any given pixel, sometimes deliberately blurred, etc.) and interpolating the values to produce reasonably nice faux color for each pixel is actually very hard and the algorithms the different companies use is presumably protected by patents.
- alanh 11y ago“nah” is a funny way to say “yes, and”
- davidw 11y agoBSD/MIT, or ASL2 are pretty much the standard if you want to see something as widely used as possible, which this sounds like might be the case. Cool work in any case! One thing the page could use is "how much processing power does this use, compared to other things?"
- SomeCallMeTim 11y agoYeah, GPLv3 AND LGPLv3 are the kiss of death for any corporate use. The patent clause in GPLv3 makes it legally impossible [1] to be used by any corporation that licenses patents; it's a completely broken clause, and GPLv3 should be banished. Without a BSD/MIT/ASL2 license as an option, you'll never see this in Internet Explorer or Chrome. Probably not even Firefox. [1] Companies license patents in bulk from other companies for their own use all the time. They don't have the right to sublicense those patents to others; they're just protected against any lawsuits relevant to the use of the ideas in those patents. Yet GPLv3 requires that they provide a free license to any patent that they have a license to that might be required to use GPLv3 source code. So it's requiring them to do something they legally can't do. Selecting GPLv3 means that no large company will ever touch it as a result.
- paxcoder 11y agoYou are wrong, and a drama queen. The only thing (L)GPLv3 patent clause obliges propagators to do (ie not mere users; not even mere modifiers) is to grant their users licenses to applicable patents which they own. The permissive Apache license v2 demands from contributors the very same. It is the software patents that should be "banished", not freedom preserving licenses. TL;DR: (L)GPLv3 prevents patent trolling through free software. Disclaimer: This is not to be treated as legal advice.
- SomeCallMeTim 11y agoYou're not a lawyer. Lawyers at big companies accept Apache's demands and reject categorically GPLv3's. Doesn't matter what you or I think of software patents (yes, they should be banned). Doesn't matter what you or I think GPLv3 says. The lawyers at big companies see it as a problem, so it's a problem. End of discussion. No drama required; it's just the fact that big companies avoid using anything cursed with GPLv3.
- andruby 11y agoIt would be useful if the metadata would include hints for responsive downloads. Eg: For 1/4 resolution download the first 10,000 bytes, for 1/2 resolution download the first 25,000 bytes.
- zyxley 11y agoThis is a really good idea.
- thaumasiotes 11y ago> WARNING: FLIF is a work in progress. The format is not finalized yet. Any small or large change in the algorithm will most likely mean that FLIF files encoded with an older version will no longer be correctly decoded by a newer version. Keep this in mind. This seems so... avoidable. Maybe the FLIF format could include a version number declaration?
- kosievdmerwe 11y agoThis makes sense for versions after the format gets finalized. If they do it for pre-finalization versions, then they (and other implementations) will have to keep supporting them, which probably doesn't make sense considering how small the corpus of images in this format likely is.
- setpatchaddress 11y agoNo, they can just reject prerelease versions without attempting to decode them, which is much more elegant (and safer).
- binarycrusader 11y agoYou're of course free to choose whatever license you believe is appropriate for your project, but I can almost guarantee that your project will not see widespread adoption if GPL or copyleft licensing is the only available implementation. Game development projects, in particular, will avoid it, as will almost anything that wants to publish an application to the Apple App Store or Google Play. You may wish to consider whether adoption of a standard implementation is more important than other goals you may have considered in choosing a license.
- ender7 11y agoPlease read the comments you reply to: "Once the format is finalized, the next logical step would be to make a library version of it, which will be most probably get licensed under the LGPL v3+"
- georgemcbay 11y agoLGPL is only marginally better (at least as it concerns perceptions, if not reality), especially when you factor in app platforms where shared libraries aren't commonly used. Basically anything copyleft is going to have a really big dropoff in use compared to say BSD, MIT or Apache 2.0.
- binarycrusader 11y agoI did, hence why I referred to "copyleft".
- belorn 11y agoExcept that game developers are already using LGPLv3, especially on the PC market which is only worth $25 billion in size. A key attribute for companies in a heavy competitive market is that they have to use every tool available to get the best product out in least amount of development time. If a company decided to avoid a license just because of religious reasons, 10 other companies will jump into its place and out compete them. A good example of this is when we see companies reaches out to developers directly to get permission, as the time to do that is worth compared to having developers spend time on unnecessary code. Large AAA games can easily have a long credit list of every license available that can be used in a proprietary product, including LGPLv3.
- agwa 11y ago> It's not because FLIF is GPL v3+ now, that we can't add more permissive licenses later. That's only guaranteed if you obtain copyright assignment from any contributors now. Otherwise, re-licensing will be a massive headache as you'll need to track down all the copyright holders for permission. Some might refuse or have have dropped off the map.
- paxcoder 11y agoI, for one, applaud your license choice. Please also see my reply to SomeCallMeTim.
- erlend_sh 11y agoIf that's the case, you should strongly consider setting up a CLA for your project so that you're free to switch licenses without any hassle when the time comes. https://www.clahub.com/pages/why_cla https://www.clahub.com/pages/why_cla
- jonsneyers 11y agoDone.